posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 03:35 PM
I'd be impressed if the costs were competitive AND the Co2 emissions were regulated stiffly enough to make a signfiicant difference in the AGW issue.
Remember that modern day climatologists are not calling for reduced emissions. That's much too weak. They're calling for drastic cuts.
They're forecasting upwards of 800pm Co2 by 2100 and a 3-6c rise in temperature.
The last time Co2 concentration was as high as it's now (~400) was about 15 million years ago. You like warm weather? Well subtract the north pole and
most of hte ice in antarctica? Still like that warm weather? You may indeed like, but millions (maybe more) of people will have to move away from
coastal areas. Big migrations of creatures to new places to establish new ecosystems. Increasingly acidic oceans that're killing off coral and eating
the shells of marine life. All this mess will happen in the span of 100 years. This means tremendous strain will be applied to the earth system.
We will not only be required to cut emissions drastically but we'll also have to geoengineer.
I do not see a bleak future, unlike many people. I happen to think we will not only find ways to produce energy more cheaply, but we'll do it cleanly
too. But it'll be a pain getting there. But I'm not so sure it'll be as bad as many fear. People exaggerate things or sometimes have misplaced fears.
I'm not saying here that vast disruption to our economy will not also lead to vast numbers of deaths and/or sequences of war. I'm only saying that no
matter how much we think we know the future we do not. We just have to be smart about our choices. The rest just magically happens.
Being smart can be a b**** though. Didn't say it was easy.
edit on 4-3-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)